CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1999

Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action where a plaintiff sustained injuries from a trip and fall over a step stool in an office corridor. The defendant premises occupant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of notice regarding the hazardous condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.). The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial, finding that the plaintiff's submissions raised issues of fact concerning the cluttered corridor and whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the danger. The court also upheld the consideration of a co-worker's affidavit, which detailed prior complaints about the corridor's condition, as no prejudice or willful disobedience of disclosure obligations was demonstrated by the defendant.

Personal InjuryTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionIssue of FactConstructive NoticeActual NoticeCo-worker AffidavitDisclosure DisputeAppellate Affirmance
References
3
Case No. Index No. 510151/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Normile v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd.

This case involves the interpretation of a general liability insurance policy's "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project" endorsement. The plaintiff, Catherine Normile, was injured off-premises by an employee of 305 Union St. Station, Inc. (Kittery Restaurant) who was returning from a food delivery. Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (the insurer) disclaimed coverage, asserting the incident did not occur at the specified covered premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the policy's language, which limits coverage to operations "necessary or incidental to those premises," requires a direct premises-based connection, rather than merely an operation incidental to the business itself. Consequently, coverage was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not have the requisite spatial or circumstantial link to the designated premises.

Insurance LawGeneral LiabilityPolicy InterpretationDesignated PremisesOff-premises IncidentFood DeliverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryCoverage Limitation
References
24
Case No. ADJ8935299
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

DAVID LOW vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a FedEx driver who sustained injuries from a fall on the employer's premises during an unpaid lunch break. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial. The injury, resulting from an idiopathic coughing fit and subsequent fall on the employer's property, is compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine" and established case law regarding idiopathic falls on premises. The board affirmed that such injuries occurring on employer premises are compensable even if caused by non-work-related conditions.

AOE/COEunpaid lunch breakemployer's premisesidiopathic conditionpersonal comfort doctrineWCJPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationCounty of Contra Costa v. RamirezOrrala v. Harris Ranch
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2004

Negron v. Rodriguez & Rodriquez Storage & Warehouse, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured while moving a piano on premises owned by the defendant. The defendant was also identified as the sole shareholder and principal of the plaintiff's employer, who was the lessee of the premises. The court determined that the plaintiff's exclusive legal remedy for the injuries was through workers' compensation benefits. Additionally, it was established that the defendant, as an out-of-possession owner, had no liability for the injuries because exclusive possession and control of the premises were vested in the plaintiff's employer, and the defendant did not maintain the property or equipment. Consequently, the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against the defendant, was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession OwnerSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyShareholder LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate AffirmationBronx CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ10130162
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

WANDA JONES vs. ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER, administered by SUTTER HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer argued Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) barred the claim, as the applicant was engaged in off-duty recreation. However, the Board found the injury occurred on employer premises within the scope of employment, applying the "premises line rule" of the going and coming rule. The applicant's intent to engage in a walk after leaving the premises did not negate compensability for an injury sustained before exiting the employer's parking garage.

WCABLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)going and coming rulepremises line ruleoff-duty recreational activitypost-shiftparking garagestairwellnursing assistantbad faith denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1983

Claim of Trubish v. New York Institute of Technology

The claimant, an assistant foreman, was injured after tripping while leaving a union meeting held on the employer's premises after his shift. The employer's insurance carrier contested benefits, arguing the accident wasn't work-related. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the referee's finding of an accident in the course of employment, citing the right to safe ingress/egress and a reasonable time to leave the premises. The court rejected the broad principle that union meetings are always work-related or mutually beneficial. However, it concluded the injury occurred within a reasonable time of leaving the premises after work duties, as the employer permitted the meeting. Therefore, the decision affirming benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationUnion MeetingCourse of EmploymentInjury on PremisesIngress and EgressReasonable TimeEmployer PermissionWork-Related AccidentCollective BargainingAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Robles

Judge Mikoll, J., dissents from a decision that found a claimant guilty of misconduct, leading to his termination on July 18, 1977. The employer's witness stated the claimant, a food service worker, was observed drinking beer in a park during his lunch break. The claimant denied both drinking and violating any company rules. The employer failed to produce any rule prohibiting employees from leaving the premises or consuming alcohol off-premises during lunch, with only an outdated contract prohibiting on-premises drinking. Mikoll, J. argues that the record lacks substantial evidence of misconduct, as an employee's actions on their own time, not affecting their job performance, are generally not subject to employer control. Citing Matter of Llano [Levine], the dissent concludes that the board's decision should be reversed.

MisconductTermination of employmentLunch break policyOff-duty conductAlcohol consumptionEmployer rulesLabor contractsSubstantial evidenceDissenting opinionWorkers' rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2004

Mercado v. Schenectady City School District

Claimant, an elementary school employee in Schenectady County, sustained injuries to her right arm and shoulder after slipping on an icy sidewalk on December 17, 2002, while walking to work. The incident occurred approximately 200 feet from the elementary school entrance, on a sidewalk in front of an adjacent middle school, which the employer maintained and considered part of its property. The Workers' Compensation Board found the injury occurred on the employer's premises and arose out of and in the course of her employment, sustaining the claim. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was not on their premises. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's factual finding that the claimant fell within the precincts of her employment, noting that being on the employer's premises going to or coming from work is generally considered an incident of employment.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryIcy SidewalkSchenectady CountyAppellate DivisionEmployer ControlBoard DecisionSlip and Fall
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06663
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2021

Vargas v. Weishaus

Plaintiff, a forklift operator, alleged injury at his employer's premises due to a hole in the loading entrance/sidewalk. The premises were owned by defendant Corinne Weishaus and leased to plaintiff's employer, United Pickle Products Corporation. Defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, moved for summary judgment arguing she had no duty to maintain the premises, citing a lease placing maintenance responsibility on the tenant. Plaintiff countered that the accident occurred on the public sidewalk, implicating Administrative Code § 7-210, which imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners to maintain abutting sidewalks. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for defendant. The Appellate Division reversed, finding issues of fact as to whether the accident occurred within the defendant's property or on the public sidewalk, which would invoke the nondelegable duty under Administrative Code § 7-210.

Out-of-possession landlordSummary judgmentPremises liabilitySidewalk maintenanceAdministrative Code § 7-210Lease agreementDuty of careTriable issues of factForklift accidentProperty owner duty
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2000

Polonetsky v. American Broadcasting Companies

This case involves a plaintiff who sustained personal injuries after a slip and fall on their employer's premises. The employer's corporate parent, ABC, Inc., and its subsidiary, Ambroco Development Corp., moved to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against them. Additionally, the employer, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., sought to dismiss cross claims brought by the floor waxing company, Harvard Maintenance Inc. The court modified the prior order, granting the dismissal motions for American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and Ambroco Development Corp. on the grounds that cross claims against the employer were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and Ambroco made a prima facie showing it did not own or maintain the premises. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for ABC, Inc., as there was sufficient evidentiary material to raise an issue of fact regarding its involvement in maintaining the premises.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityCross-ClaimsMotion to DismissSummary Judgment StandardsNew York Appellate Procedure
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 498 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational